pz

No. You have devised a vague and unworkable definition of macroevolution ("significant change among higher taxa") that precludes any observation in your lifetime, by definition, and is also pretty much nonsensical (change "among higher taxa"? How would such a thing happen?). To then claim that this makes the process undemonstrable is ridiculous. I might as well pop in to a christian forum and inform them that I've defined Jesus as that guy who squirts wine out of his antennae, and since no such fellow has ever existed, I've 'disproven' christianity.Oh, please. What are these "rational doubts"? There is no rational argument for a young earth. To do so is to reject fundamental principles of physics, geology, and biology. You should know this. You might as well be arguing for a flat earth. The only reason to believe in a young earth is because you have a dogmatic belief in an old religion.

By the way, it's pretty silly to complain if atheists "use the lord's name in vain", don't you think? Get over it.

Malachi256

Actually there are double blind experiments going on right now to check for the effects of prayer and healing rates...

These experiments aren't attempting to deduce the CAUSE, but just rather see if there is a statistically observable effect.


"No that is a hypothesis."

Yup, ya got me =P I think you saw where I was going though =P

"But it appears that you don't understand exactly what type of hypotheses that are made in the study of evolution.
For example, "birds are descended from dinosaurs" is a hypothesis. Such a hypothesis leads to predictions such as:
There existed creatures in the past that contained both avian features and dinosaurian features.
Out of all living taxa, birds' closest relatives are crocidillians and thus should share similar DNA, phylogenetically.
And guess what. Uncovered fossils confirms 1 and bioinformatics confirms 2. These are examples of how scientists test "macroevolutionary" predictions."

You're correct, an evolutionary or creationist model will allow a scientist to make predictions, and then see if scrounged up evidence supports one or the other.

Everyone seems to be under the notion that I think a court case is completely unscientific, or in another realm entirely or something...

"It seems to me that you are laboring under a false notion of what science is. Science isn't about experimentation. Science is about the analysis of data. Experimation is only one of the many ways in which science acquires and analysizes data. Arguing that since we cannot predict the outcome of evolution exactly that it is not scientific is like arguing that one cannot study casinos because it is impossible to predict how the dice will land."


Actually, I'd say science, at least by one definition, is about the scientific method which involves experimentation AND analysis, as well as observation, prediction, and peer review. Saying it's all analysis and not experimentation is taking it too far. My problem with macroevolution is that I cannot test it under repeatable conditions. The only peer review in Macroevolution is not labs around the globe replicating experiments, but rather different people giving their opinions on the same pieces of evidence, and making guesses about additional evidence that might be found. It's far more like a bunch of theologians interpretting scripture than a introductory science experiment in a lab to demonstrate anaerobic respiration, or something....

Also, do you honestly believe that the predictive power of macroevolutionary theory has been demonstrated to be robust in the last 150 years? It'd be interesting to see a literature review along these lines. I know of examples where the prediction was allowed to interpret the results (with poor... results...) and I'm sure there are examples where predictions came true, but I was under the impression that the theory is still largely suffering from the lack of a solid mechanistic model.

Malachi256

Actually, I think it's far sillier that anyone would use the name of some 2000 year old guy they pretty much don't believe in (at least as he is typically understood) as some sort of verbal pause or curse word. It really doesn't make sense to me, unless you are actively trying to cause God (who you don't believe in), or people who believe different from you, grief.

For the sake of discussion, out of respect for me, I'll just ask that you not do it.


So, for this to continue, it'd help me if I had your definition of Evolution.

pz

Do you also reject most of astronomy and geology on these grounds?

How about human genetics?

I think it is absurd to claim something didn't happen because you can't repeat it at will. Evolutionary biology is in part a historical science, which doesn't fit well into the unrealistic and unworkable view of science you are expressing here. As Gould has said,
You are basically claiming that because the phenomenon we are studying is characterized by chance, contingency, and grand expanses of time, that we cannot address it scientifically. That is simply wrong.
See Gould's quote above. We do not expect the kind of simple-minded "mechanistic model" creationists all too often demand, because the process isn't a mechanistic one.

Malachi256

Kev
Community College, very close to high school...


"because life exists on a continuum."

Sure, there are many grey areas in life, but it is human nature to try to categorize things in order to understand them better.
Look at personality tests - obviously, no one is 100% melancholy or choleric, but some people tend to be more in one category than another, and that can help in understanding yourself.


"There really isn't a universal definition of species, and when it comes down to it, there isn't a universal definition of life. For example, would an intelligent, self-replicating program be a form of digital life? Should a virus be considered alive?"

Obviously these are situations that exist along the line. I don't know when that line is crossed, but it is certainly a fun one to talk about. Hollywood has exploded with movies detailing the results of AI reaching a point of self-awareness. To say "it's hard, therefore I'm not going to try" just seems kinda... boring.


"Every generation of organism is at least slightly different in average allele frequency than its parent generation, and sometimes posesses novel alleles. Over time, average characteristics shift, change, and branch. All those things are accounted for by mutation, genetic drift, natural selection, and environmental changes. That's the explanation of evolution that I'd give to students, because micro and macro are really just semantic devices of our language that don't have a corresponding universal reality in biology."


Whelp, I can understand why you don't bother making the distinction, because it's not an easy one to make, however I feel that ignoring it or pretending there is no distinction is not responsible, especially for someone with my beliefs. I don't teach creationism, but I have told every class I've ever taught that I don't believe in macro evolution (or, when I re-word it, I tell them, "I don't believe I am a descendant of apes" or something along those lines)

Evolution is a fundamental science that affects all parts of our lives, our basic paradigms - telling someone they are the product of entirely natural processes (and ultimately their only purpose is to pass on their genes), as opposed to supernatural creation, where your purpose is coexistance with a parental type being, is huge!

The reality is that most of my students don't really seem to care either way (heh), but it is nonetheless something I will not just let go. Clearly the level of passion on boards like these goes to show that the issue is of extreme importance to atheists as well.

Just because micro and macro are not the most accurate descriptors of current evolutionary theory, they nonetheless provide an easy separation for the events that we can witness, and the events of the past that we can collect evidence for or against.

edit: spelling

Malachi256

pz:

"Do you also reject most of astronomy and geology on these grounds?

How about human genetics?"


First of all, I have to reject about 2% of biology as it is. I have thrived in the public school system, and have thrived as a teacher. The amount of introductory biology I have to reject or re-work by not believing in macro is laughable. edit: what little I do reject, I can easily teach with the disclaimer that "most scientists believe this, but some, including me, don't."

I certainly don't reject those other fields either. Interestingly enough, astronomy and geology are both fields with lots of disagreement amongst experts, and lots of interpretation. Since they are not my fields of expertise, I don't actually do much with them, other than try to learn the basic arguments of both sides. But I have yet to hear anything to cause me to "reject" them. Disagree with certain purported evidences? Of course.

Human genetics is a subject of greatly increasing interest to me lately. I don't think I reject it either. Could you elaborate?


"I think it is absurd to claim something didn't happen because you can't repeat it at will."

I am a skeptic. Whether it's the discover channel spouting off some evolutionary rhetoric, or my pastor talking about crazy miracles on some mission trip, I pretty much say "I'll believe it when I see it."



quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"History includes too much chaos, or extremely sensitive dependence on minute and unmeasurable differences in initial conditions, leading to massively divergent outcomes based on tiny and unknowable disparities in starting points. And history includes too much contingency, or shaping of present results by long chains of unpredictable antecedent states, rather than immediate determination by timeless laws of nature."
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

"You are basically claiming that because the phenomenon we are studying is characterized by chance, contingency, and grand expanses of time, that we cannot address it scientifically."

Once again, I'm not saying it's out of the realm of science. I'm saying it's a different, weaker, kind of science. I can see one happen, I can't see the other, I don't see what's so obtuse. For one, I have to try to "prove" it based on limited evidence, for the other I get to test it (and produce NEW evidence) as much as I want.


"That is simply wrong.
See Gould's quote above. We do not expect the kind of simple-minded "mechanistic model" creationists all too often demand, because the process isn't a mechanistic one."

I'm not sure where you're going here. Do you expect a model that "includes too much chaos, or extremely sensitive dependence on minute and unmeasurable differences in initial conditions, leading to massively divergent outcomes based on tiny and unknowable disparities in starting points"?

You'll have to elaborate your point.

Kevbo

Malachi: I see teaching a distinction between "micro" and "macro" as analagous to teaching something along the lines of:

'There are two kinds of cement steps, small steps and big steps. We use small step every day to get into different buildings, but big steps are steps that are too high for a person to jump up to... except that different people have different jumping abilities, so we're not going to settle on an exact number. Obviously, no one can jump over 20 feet high, though, so it's impossible to build any buildings over this limit since we can't be sure that anyone would be able to use them.'

Of course, this denies the fact that multiple small steps can be taken to incur a big change. Life is constantly taking small steps in every direction. To make a distinction between "microevolution" and "macroevolution" in terms of evidence, you need some kind of genetic barrier that prevents gene pools from drifting too far in any direction. There is evidence in the genomes that exist today which implies that no such barrier exists, so "macroevolution" and "microevolution" are just ill-defined terms of scale that have no evidenciary distinction.

Malachi256

*shrugs*

genetic evidence is intersting, and is a subject I have done little digging on for either side of the argument. I know the basics, but had more of a macro slant in my undergrad degree, and didn't start getting heavily into until my grad degree. It's pretty much next on my list of things to dig into.

I guess, until then, I'm not yet convinced by any overwhelming evidence, nor do I have lots of ammunition to throw back at ya =)


As for the analogy... it just doesn't do it for me.

I'm saying, regardless of the fact that we can build and use small steps, that doesn't mean that we can necessarily make it to the moon on them =) Of course, the disagreement is on how much of a barrier "space" is in the analogy... which brings us back to the top...

pz

Like I said, I weep for my country. The reason you can get away with that is that this subject has been gutted in high school science curricula. It's a shame.

I teach it at the college level. The first thing we have to do is remedial biology, to correct the piss-poor job most high school teachers have done.
You do not accept macroevolution because you can't test it under repeatable conditions, you say. You also can't test much of astronomy and geology under repeatable conditions.

None of the experts in geology or astronomy disagree on the subject of whether the earth is 6000 years old or billions.
Then you are inconsistent. You don't get to repeat experiments in human genetics, either.
Are you seriously suggesting that nobody has any evidence for macroevolution, or that no new evidence for it has been acquired or can be acquired? Every paleontological discovery is new evidence, a new test of the theory. Evo-devo, and large swathes of molecular genetics and developmental biology, are actively and productively exploring the mechanisms of macroevolution right now.

"Weaker science"? Bunk. The kind of naive physics-model of science that you are advocating is the "weaker science" when it comes to studying the phenomena of biology. The problem here isn't a weakness in the science, but a weakness in your idea of how it ought to be done.
I am saying that any attempt to place biology in a straight jacket that a priori rejects chaos and contingency as unscientific is going to fail. You have a kind of 19th century vision of science, and aren't going to be happy until biology is reduced to a table of billiard balls...because science must deal with entities that you can hold in your hand and bounce around. That's simply false.

Malachi256

pz

you are continuing to straw-man me

I am not rejecting Macroevolution because it is not testable like microevolution.

I'm merely making a distinction. Do you think I reject every conclusion our justice system comes to because it's done in a court of law, as opposed to a laboratory?

The reasons I reject macroevolution are numerous, and would definitely involve another post, if not a novel.